Introduction:

In the case of M.G. Sreejith v. M/S MSS Hospital and Nursing College Pvt. Ltd. and another (FAO No. 9 of 2025), the Kerala High Court recently addressed the complexities surrounding the comparison of signatures based on photocopies in legal proceedings. The appellant, M.G. Sreejith, a lawyer by profession, had extended a loan of ₹45 lakhs to the Managing Director (MD) of MSS Hospital and Nursing College Pvt. Ltd. to assist in settling outstanding bank dues. Despite the hospital’s subsequent sale and the clearance of its bank liabilities, the loan remained unpaid, prompting Sreejith to file a suit for recovery, leading to a conditional attachment of the hospital’s property.

Arguments:

The respondents contended that the ₹45 lakhs was not a loan but an advance payment towards a purported agreement dated April 23, 2023, wherein Sreejith allegedly agreed to purchase the hospital for ₹14 crores. They argued that Sreejith’s failure to fulfil this agreement necessitated the sale of the hospital to another entity, M/s. Sunrise Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The trial court, upon comparing the signatures on the plant and the disputed agreement—both available only as photocopies—concluded that they were similar and lifted the previously ordered attachment.

Challenging this decision, Sreejith appealed to the High Court, denying the existence of the alleged agreement and asserting that the trial court’s reliance on photocopied signatures was improper. Justice Syam Kumar V.M., presiding over the appeal, emphasized the inherent risks in comparing signatures from photocopies, noting that such comparisons are a “slippery slope” and should be approached with “great care and circumspection.” The court highlighted that without the original documents, especially in cases involving parties with prior transactions, any conclusion drawn from photocopied signatures could be unreliable.

Judgement:

The High Court further observed that the authenticity of the disputed agreement could only be determined through a comprehensive evaluation of evidence during a full trial. Given the absence of conclusive evidence regarding the repayment of the ₹45 lakhs and the questionable validity of the alleged agreement, the court found a prima facie case in favour of Sreejith. Consequently, the High Court reinstated the conditional attachment of the hospital’s property and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, aiming for a resolution within six months.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s caution against relying on photocopied documents for signature verification, acknowledging the potential for inaccuracies and the necessity for original evidence in legal disputes.